- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thursday, August 18, 2005

GUESS THAT IGNORANT RACIST

This from the NZ Herald's Simon Collins today on explaining red necks:

The predominant theme is that, whatever the rights and wrongs of 150 years ago, the Treaty now gives money and privileges to people who just happen to be descended from the "right" side of the New Zealand wars - even though almost every Maori now also has European ancestors.

Where does one start? Who, through those "wars" now owns the most productive agricultural land of the Waikato, Taranaki and Bay of Plenty with all the money and privileges that go with that? It isn't the Maori owners is it? (What was that, mate: "those lucky fucking Jew houlacaust survivors and their kids getting those handouts eh... some of them are even less than half-Jewish!) Pick up your marching drum Orange Boy and head off down the Shankill why don't you.

Does Collins then make mention of the outrageous misinformation, presumptions, historical illiteracy and outright racism of these people? No, of course not, he works for the paper that was founded by white extremists on the issue of demanding the Waikato be confiscated - before there was even a war! What a wonderful insight into his race-bonding brotherhood and the towering intellects of Pakehadom you get down the fleamarket. Hear their oppressed voices now, as their hero's struggle for freedom against Maori oppression is hereby reproduced verbatim:

To make our quest more palatable:

--------------------------------

GUESS THAT IGNORANT RACIST
Match the racist bullshit with the type of racist. (Answers here.)

IGNORANT RACIST BULLSHIT:

"If I sold my house to someone and came back 20 years later and wanted it back, it wouldn't happen."

"All of us are New Zealanders... Helen Clark just keeps forking out and forking out to those Maoris. I think there's got to be a point where she's got to say, 'That's enough'."

"If the Maoris can have one [a treaty], why can't the Chinese, the Samoans, the Tongans?... If you are going with the one world, stuff the treaty settlements. What's the point?"

"I have a son paying his way through tech, who wants to know why his education isn't free when some of his mates are free just because they're of a different race."

"We have a classic example - the kohanga reo gets everything, but the playcentre struggles with the parents helping them."

"It's racism in reverse... You can't have democracy on the one hand, and on the other hand favour one group of people. It doesn't make sense. It can't work."


TYPE OF IGNORANT RACIST

Howick student, Becky Tappin, 18,
Tauranga administrator, Leslie Kruger, 45
Pukenui woman, 61
Manukau storeman, Saki Ah San, 32
Christchurch distribution worker, Helen McLellan, 40
Taupaki floristry worker, Jacqui Burdett


The South African one has "fled" here, Simon Collins informs us. From what - paying slaves? Aren't we importing such wonderful new New Zealanders. The Pakeha education system has failed many people.

7 Comments:

At 19/8/05 9:41 am, Blogger stephen said...

When arguing with such people I try and put it in terms of family inheritance.

If the family (in this case various iwi or hapu) has inherited property rights, it matters not a whit how miscegenated the descendants are, as long as the descent is clearly traced. In this case there is a clear analogy between tribal rights guaranteed under the treaty and an inheritance, and between tribes and family members.

In fact, you can see that over time, more and more people will be entitled to a more and more dilute share. (Like my 1/64 Ngai Tahu daughter, for example).

But anyway, treating it as restoring the family inheritance casts it in a different light for a lot of people.

(Whether we want an effective aristocracy in this country, ie with perpetual inherited rights to land etc, is a good and related question of course....)

 
At 22/8/05 10:22 am, Anonymous Reasonble Ray said...

..that already exists of course. There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with inherited and perpetual property rights. I like your analogy, however. I think there is alot of confusion among white NZers on this issue, specifically that much of the land was indeed taken, rather than bought through a fair transaction between two willing parties. I think many believe (like those quoted above) that Maori are somhow reneging on a property transaction, rather than the more truthful, and somewhat ironic fact that 'they was robbed' in the first place.

 
At 22/8/05 3:39 pm, Blogger t selwyn said...

Yes, I note a letter to the NZ Herald today pointing out that issue and recommending that history should be taught in schools. I already thought it was? Or maybe it is a half hour per year in the social studies curriculum in the fifth form (Year 10?/15? in the new money).

My old teacher, a Gormsby, devoted a whole lesson on how the Treaty was "a nullity" - that was back in 1989 (Guess his subscription to the Law Review was cancelled by that stage). We all had to line up outside his classroom in military formation for inspection before entering! Those were the days. Despite being turfed out for talking on a regular basis, and using school atlases so old that half of Africa was under French rule, I still managed to get the best results in his class. Good old Mr Coyne LLB. Heard that Lange had resigned as PM on a friend's walkman in that form class... memories.

 
At 26/8/05 12:40 am, Anonymous RAS said...

The fundamental problem of your post is that none of your examples of "ignorant racists" were in fact racist.
But hey, if you want to redefine the word in a self-serving way, go ahead.
Just don't be surprised when most people don't share your doublethink.

 
At 26/8/05 1:49 am, Blogger t selwyn said...

RAS:
The comments are not just ignorant but because they pre-judge on the basis of race and are negative I classify them as racist.
But hey, if you want to redefine the word in a self-serving way, go ahead...

 
At 27/8/05 11:16 pm, Anonymous ras said...

C’mon, "I'm rubber you're glue" -is that the best you can do?

OK let's look at your "examples":

"If I sold my house to someone and came back 20 years later and wanted it back, it wouldn't happen."

At best, all you have here is ignorance -that is, if there definitely haven't been any Maori claims that could be fairly characterised like that, either way, nothing to do with race.

"All of us are New Zealanders... Helen Clark just keeps forking out and forking out to those Maoris. I think there's got to be a point where she's got to say, 'That's enough'."

A bitch about preferential treatment. If it's totally untrue, then you can again maybe argue "ignorance", but expecting equal treatment for all is racist? Bullshit.

"If the Maoris can have one [a treaty], why can't the Chinese, the Samoans, the Tongans?... If you are going with the one world, stuff the treaty settlements. What's the point?"

OK I agree -this one is stupid. It's still a bitch about perceived preferential treatment though. Not racist.

"I have a son paying his way through tech, who wants to know why his education isn't free when some of his mates are free just because they're of a different race."

Is this statement true? Do some people get a free education from the government because of their race while others have to pay? If so, it's an example of "preferential treatment" and possibly state-sponsored racism -but not on the part of the person complaining about it.

"We have a classic example - the kohanga reo gets everything, but the playcentre struggles with the parents helping them."

OK some more ignorance here. If she wants to compare state-funded pre-schools then she should be comparing kohanga reo with kindergartens.

Personally I think kohanga reo are a great idea and as far as I know, there's nothing stopping her from putting her child in one. However, I'm sure they do cost extra vs. running a single system so the onus is on me to argue why the state should be giving extra funding for one culture’s language.

But if she still doesn’t agree with me, it doesn’t make her racist.

"It's racism in reverse... You can't have democracy on the one hand, and on the other hand favour one group of people. It doesn't make sense. It can't work."

This guy obviously isn’t a political scientist. But yet again, it’s a bitch about perceived preferential treatment. Every one of these statements is a complaint about social policy being UNFAIR. Now, if you think they’re wrong, then show how the policies they’re talking about aren’t unfair or, make a convincing argument why the unfairness is necessary.

Or, and this seems to be your chosen method:

Be an intellectually lazy dumbfuck, just scream RACIST, and hope that’ll shut them up.

 
At 28/8/05 4:08 pm, Blogger t selwyn said...

RAS:

I have judged them as ignorant and racist based on their comments. You say they are only ignorant at most but not racist.

You prefer Wiki - so do I:
The term 'racism' is used in various ways, but is most commonly used to describe the attitudes of those who are racially prejudiced...

Since they were all commenting about Maori, as non-Maori, in negative terms, having incorrect knowledge or assumptions they are also prejudiced. When someone uses the term "those Maoris" (which I bolded for emphasis) it becomes very difficult to say they are not racist as it is rather obvious what they think about "those Maoris."

Preferential treatment: If it doesn't exist how can I find examples of it? I mentioned some in another post - but overall it doesn't seem to be very much. And if it is found to what extent is it? If it is so small as to have almost negligible impact does that warrant the attitudes? You are right as far as saying it is "perceived" - and I'm saying that's because they are racist. The biggest single and most obvious "preference" would be the Maori parliamentary seats - but seeing as this is effectively an excuse not to enforce the Treaty and has been used by governments as an excuse to screw Maori over - then it certainly not a positive preference.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home